given birth to Pelagius, the most remarkable "man of whom Wales can boast, and the most "reasonable of all those men, whom the antient "church has branded with the note of heresy.' What proofs of superior reason were exhibited by Pelagius, I have yet to learn. By your account, he denied original sin; and this, you justly observe, " is a perilous error." But, by your account also, ❝he vindicated the goodness of God, by asserting "the free-will of man; and he judged more sanely "than his triumphant antagonist St. Augustine, "who, retaining too much of the philosophy which ❝he had learned in the Manichean school, in"fected with it the whole church during many "centuries, and afterwards divided both the catho❝lic and protestant world." Is this a fair statement of the comparative merits of Pelagius and St. Augustine ? Does it give an accurate view of the controversy between them? You add, that, "of "all those ambitious spirits, who have adulterated "the true doctrine of revelation with their own opinions, Augustine, perhaps, is the one who has "produced the widest and most injurious effects."

Many of the most eminent lights of your church have entertained a very different opinion of this great man; you will find their testimonies collected in Mr. Brerely's "Religion of St. Augustine," printed in 1620. Luther affirms, that, "since "the apostles' time, the church had never a better "doctor than St Augustine;" and that, “after "the sacred scriptures, there is no doctor in the

* Luth. Op. ed. Witten. tom. 7; Loc. Comm. class 4, p. 45.

"church, who is to be compared with him." If you even cursorily run over the parts of doctor Lardner's learned work, which relate to the Manichees, you will see that the doctor repeatedly mentions St. Augustine in terms of the highest praise; and, as Lardner had attentively read and considered all St. Augustine's works, his testimony is certainly of the greatest importance. Permit me to recommend his "Confessions" to your perusal; you will be delighted with them. If he had written no other work, this alone would give him a high rank among the most sublime, elegant and pious writers.

As to your preference of Pelagius, I need not mention to a gentleman of your learning, that disputes on free-will have agitated the world, both before and after the introduction of christianity. The difficulty has always been to discover some system, which reconciles the freedom of will with the influence of motive upon it; and which makes the good works of men meritorious in the eyes of the Almighty, while yet they remain his absolute gift. Pelagius maintained, that, both in the choice and execution of good, man acts independently of divine grace. In opposition to him, St. Augustine maintained, that grace prevents and aids our will but does not destroy it. When he was pressed to explain, how God could be the sole author of good, unless his grace necessitated man to the choice or execution of it, he acknowledged the extreme difficulty of the question: he frequently gives no other answer, than exclaiming with St. Paul* ; * Rom. xi. 33.

"Oh! the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom' " and the knowledge of God! His judgments, how "unsearchable! His ways, how past belief!" He felt that the subject was beyond his reason; the time, he knew, would come, when "the Almighty "would be judged and overcome;"that is, when all the dispositions of his providence would be unfolded; and the justice, the wisdom, and the holiness of his councils, would be seen and acknowledged.

Such is the system of St. Augustine on this difficult and abstruse subject:-I leave you now to decide between him and his adversary.

I am the more surprised at the harshness of your language, in respect to St. Augustine, as that great man was harsh to no one: he was mild and humble, even to those, whom he thought most to deserve blame. One passage in his writings is, upon this account, so exquisitely beautiful, that I cannot help transcribing it, particularly as I know that you, too, will peruse it with pleasure :-"Let those "be severe upon persons in error, who know not "with what labour truth is discovered, and error "avoided. Let those be severe who know not how

harshly the diseases of the mind are cured, and "the eye of the understanding prepared to see "the light, Let those be severe who were never ❝entangled in error. As for me, I cannot be severe; I know the patience and long forbear"ance I myself have wanted.".

66

1 Ep. ad Fund.

X. 5.

Transubstantiation.

You will expect to find something in this letter upon the important question of transubstantiation.

You inform us, that, "of all the corruptions of "christianity, there was none which the popes so "long hesitated to sanction as transubstantiation." You mention "the flagrant absurdity of this doc

trine;" and you say, that "pope Gregory VII. "inclined to the opinion of Berenger, who opposed "it." But there is not one of these assertions for which you cite any authority: I deny them all; and for the authorities, upon which I ground my denial, I refer you to "Doctor Milner's Letter on "Transubstantiation," among those addressed by him to the late doctor Sturges; to his letters on the same subject in his "End of Controversy," and to his "Powerful vindication of it."-"I do, in แ my heart," the late dean Milner of Carlisle used to say,-"love a strong argument:" if you have the same liking, I recommend you to peruse the three works I have just mentioned: many a strong argument on the subject in question you will find in every one of them. If you will peruse the account of Berenger, in the Histoire Litéraire de la France, you will find your total misapprehension of the transactions between that celebrated man and pope Gregory VII. You will find that, as soon as Berenger's doctrine became known, it received that blow, which tradition always gives to religious novelty,

-the murmured reprobation of it by the pastors of the church of Christ. You will also find, that before it was condemned by Gregory VII, it had been successively condemned by pope Leo IX, Victor II, Nicholas II, and Alexander II, and proscribed by councils held at Rome, at Paris, at Vercelli, in 1050; at Florence, in 1054; at Rome, in 1058, 1076, 1078, and 1079; and finally, that after many subterfuges, it was retracted by its author: that he lived ten years after his retractation, and never swerved from it. It is possible that, after perusing these lines, and consulting the authorities to which they refer, you should remain an unbeliever in the catholic doctrine of transubstantiation; but I think it absolutely impossible, that, after perusing them, you should continue to think, that, when Gre gory VII. ascended the pontifical throne, it was a novelty; or that it is decent to treat it, or the believers of it, with contumely,

I shall resume the subject in my last letter: I shall there consider the statute of the 30th of Charles II. which renders it necessary for peers, before they take their seats in parliament, to take an oath against transubstantiation; and thus, while it admits Jews, Mahometans, Deists and Atheists into parliament, excludes roman-catholic peers from their hereditary seats in that august assembly.

I shall attempt to show in it, that NO PROTESTANT who believes the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, either in the mode of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or impanation, or in any other imaginable mode, CAN CONSCIENTIOUSLY